I am wondering if I have any embarrassing emails in my past. I think I’m safe but I do think this has gotten out of hand. I get having concerns about national security breeches. This is looking a lot more like a general fishing expedition.

Do you suppose they needed a warrant for any of this?

http://cendax.wordpress.com Norbrook

Do you suppose they needed a warrant for any of this?

I doubt it, which is disturbing in and of itself. Seriously, the FBI – or rather the shirtless agent – took this way beyond what attention it merited based on the original complaint.

addisnana

But, he has a ‘worldview’ that apparently propelled him to action.

Jim W

[M]ilitary law prohibits adultery — which General Allen’s associates say he denies committing — and some kinds of relationships. says the New York Times.

Time to change military law to eliminate these threats to national security.

NCrissieB

I understand the UCMJ’s law on adultery, and it’s more humane than the media howl would have you believe. The prosecution must prove there were sexual relations, that someone involved was married and not to each other, and – most important – that the conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline and/or would discredit the military. Worth noting: none of the military officers involved in this story has yet been charged under the UCMJ. (Because Gen. Petraeus is retired, he’s still subject to the UCMJ.)

As for the email searches, as a general rule they need a warrant. I’m not sure if there were exceptions here due to the participants’ government positions.

Gardener

Always seemed to me that you lose a lot of rights while you’re defending the rights of others. My uneducated guess is they didn’t need a warrant for a military e-mail search, account national security interests……..